tv Washington Journal Representative Steve King R-IA CSPAN March 8, 2017 7:18am-7:46am EST
said at that rostrum just days ago. bill that the republicans are going to mark up on wednesday does not do what they saidr what president trump the american people will oppose it, and we will reflect their opposition in his house. but we are available to our republican colleagues in good faith to work together to ensure that with the president said, available to all at a lower price, with everybody having access. we will support that bill if it exists, and we will work with
our republican colleagues to pass it and give that protection and security to the american people. host: we continue our discussion now with republican congressman steve king of iowa. we are talking about the american health care act. is it replacement plenty can support? guest: i am not there yet. my position today if they were to ask me would be no. i recognize we need to get to a place we can get to yes. this is our time in history where we have the opportunity to repeal most of obamacare. and hopefully all of obamacare, and replace it with a plan that will give people the opportunity to get their doctor back and maybe even get their health insurance policy back that they like before obamacare came in the law. host: what gets you to a yes? -- it extendstes an entitlement.
it just does it in a different way. ,nd the refundable tax credit which means the federal government essentially cuts a check. i understand how they configured this, you directed to the insurance company. that's a direct subsidy for premiums. when you do that you are paying for health insurance premiums out of federal tax dollars. the never-e -- that it retains the mandates. that will make it difficult to sell insurance across state lines and have that be effective. host: what about the medicaid expansion? what is your stance on that and what the legislation does it? guest: it essentially stops the medicaid expansion. it pays up to 90% of medicaid up so 2020. i think that's a good thing. it rolls back the medicaid blockion and ends up granting it to the states. but the governor's manage medicaid in their states.
that is resulted in billions of dollars in savings. i think that part is on balance a good thing. we've only had a day and a little better to look at this bill. there is a lot to be analyzed. it is one thing to read a bill and understand what it does, but there is another level of responsibility we have to understand how it impacts people and how people respond to the potential legislation that is there. it is not just this bill does x, the people they do y and z. you have to understand how human nature reacts to theyou have ton nature reacts to the language. host: speaking of those regulations, you are a strong voice in the pro-life movement. what does this building for the protection of the unborn? guest: it ends funding to planned parenthood for one year. my argument is funding abortion with federal tax dollars and controlling everyone in america to find that, or worse borrowing money from china
or saudi arabia to do so is wrong. we should end it forever and completely instead of one year. i don't know what it has for protectionist policies that would fund abortion. ornow we put up a provision fought for a provision in obamacare that they kept pretty loose on how they handled that. no one would be compelled to buy insurance policies that fund abortions -- a four abortions. when my obamacare was canceled, september 28, i had only one policy to choose from to replace it and i had 90 days to figure out how to do that. one of the first things i checked was does the policy fund abortion. the answer was no, it doesn't. they said sorry. tells you something about the attitude of the tells you st the attitude of the people administering that health insurance. host: let's talk with somebody callers this morning.
yaya from chicago. caller: mr. king, president trump and speaker ryan are all on video clearly stating they will "lower premiums and more deductibles." yet the plan presented by the gop specifically allows insurance carriers to charge uninsured individuals 30% more in premiums. how does charging someone 30% more on a premium lower their premium? taxes insurance executives' wages above $500,000. how is not taxing an insurance executive ceo's $9 million salary lower premiums and deductibles? this does not make any sense. as soon as president trump realizes the gop will fail to deliver his promises he will
turn on you, just like you turn on you in the primary. his supporters do not like the gop. that's why they left our party. you are playing with orange fire and you will get burned. host: thank you. guest: on the 30% penalty, and the republican plan they illuminate the individual mandate, which is in obamacare, that requires mandates of individuals by health insurance. the provision they wrote in to bill is if you don't maintain continuous coverage, when you buy back in you will pay a 30% more on your premium. that is an incentive. i don't agree with that. i think your point is right. if the equivalent of a penalty and a way of getting around finding it as an individual mandate. the second component of your question was -- host: a lot of colors to check
hath you this morning -- c with you this morningt. caller: i called it on the democratic line but it actually care forink the health the american citizens can be taken care of this way. we simply take and make all the american citizens refugees or illegal immigrants and the health care for the american citizens will be solved. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you. i would say in this legislation i'm not sure have the adequate provisions in there to be sure the system is not subsidizing people that are unlawfully here in america. we were able to get some of that into obamacare but the light which was weekene -- weakened.
it will be more difficult because a reconciliation to put those in place. host: i want to get your thought on the president's revised travel ban on his vetting executive order. will this pass constitutional muster? guest: i think it does. i don't have any hesitation because there is an existing 1882, that grants the president full authority to decide who comes into america. individual, any aliens or classes of aliens -- he determines -- the risk united states without having any other standard than the president's judgment. he has that authority in the first executive order he wrote. did not identify the statute or make the point as to how he thought it was unconstitutional. we have gone through this litigation and i think the
president has written an executive order designed to answer the objections of the public. it is almost no a political document rather than a legal one. the first one that constitutional muster. this one i'm very confident that will meet constitutional muster, but not the public criticism buster. -- muster. i want the good judgment we have elected from the presidency on down to the senate and house, i want that to run america. are you disappointed he pulled back the first executive order? does the second order make us less safe than the first one? guest: if he had been more aggressive with his first executive order, we would be more safe. dropping iraq at and the reason for that is they are saying iraq has provided better records and we are able to vet people coming out of iraq. i don't know whether -- what that is based on, but dropping iraq out seemed to taken
political pressure off. and exempting people that are legal residents and knows -- those that now have these -- those that have visas. they are looking for the reason to push back a president trump. he will have to plow through this and do the right thing as president of the united states are we will see some more of this violence on the streets of our country. host: john is waiting in montana. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. king. greatest respect to you and your colleagues. i'm a 57-year-old small-business owner. due to insurance costs i got rid of my employees and decided to work until my retirement by myself. my in premiums have gone up under obamacare. i'm pretty healthy. i never use my insurance. i am going to get rid of my insurance totally.
there is not going to be any more penalties when it comes time for me to get sick, i will go to the emergency room with the rest of the immigrants and four people and just use up the system. i say that flippantly, but i'm serious. i'm tired of premiums and the fact that you guys cannot get control on this entry people fairly. i am not a rich man but a make a living. i am tired of paying for other people to use my money. thank you, sir. guest: thank you for calling in and speaking up. this is an example to our country of the kind of decisions people have to make when they see premiums go up and through the roof. i talked to an individual professionala that saw his premiums go up to 24,000 dollars a year and it was no longer prudent to pay for health insurance premiums rather than taking the risk. we will hear that across this country. i want people to be able to buy the insurance policy they want, they choose. i went to expand health savings
accounts so a person might view, john, can be sitting there at $500,000 or more that $1 million in your health savings account if we started when you were 20. you have good health experiences like that, you can retire under the hsa i propose. $950,000 and a health savings account. you can than via medicare replacement policy at 865. keep the change tax-free. use it in your pension fund. we turn the hsa into not only health savings account with a life management account that includes run personal pension plan. we can do that in a free country. this is an example of why we need to. you can negotiate catastrophic health insurance policies that would be a high deductible and a higher copayment, but a low premium and you can roll the savings into your health savings account. good health experience would put you into a good position today
rather than a bad position. host: these changes you are submitting to be included into this legislation as it moves through congress? guest: it is legislation i have introduced. trying to get enough traction that it can be included. host: have you talked to speaker ryan? guest: i have not had that direct conversation in the last few days. i have been pushing this in our conference, pushing it through the media with my colleagues. i've had a lot of conversations about health care since 2009. this is something i developed maybe six years before that. it is out there but they don't seem to be that interested for some reason. host: fort worth, texas. robert, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. king. -- she works for chase, big bank. we have our own health insurance. i have a question.
according to what i understand about the aca, it does not cover dental insurance. i read some information about it. i'm not quite sure why it is not covered. figured if is a health program, dental care should be covered. i was wondering if you could answer that. guest: the dental side of this is just considered to be an additional cost that drives the cost of two high and mix of more prohibited for having any kind of policy out there. we joke above the people from the united kingdom with their socialized medicine. a lot of them have bad teeth. one of the reason is because they don't pay for that out of the government check. you have to pay out of your pocket. it is kind of a global joke but it happens to be true. it is an option for that reason. i just wrote a nice check to my
dentist the day before yesterday out of my pocket. i don't have dental either and i figure i can afford that. so far we are doing ok. that is the reason for it. the more we add on, the more expensive the g -- it gets. taking you back to 2003 will be passed medicare part d that added pharmaceuticals to the medicare coverage. the prescription drug component of that. we needed to do that because became such a big part of health care. for a long time we had medicare without paying for prescription drugs. that add on added a lot to the cost of medicare. host: congressman steve king of iowa. we have shared president trump's tweets this morning. one ago whole lot of attention was his on early saturday morning. "just found out obama had my wire cap in trump tower. this is mccarthyism." you set a rogue intel operation may have been behind this wiretapping.
what evidence do you have for that? guest: there are a lot of things out there there isn't any evidence for. we know it has been reported that the obama administration applied for a pfizer warned sometime in june. that is been reported at least into outlets. then it was reported again in october that they apply for a warrant and receive that. hillary clinton had a tweet out on october 31 that the computer specialist identified communications between the trump campaign and the russians. we are adding all this up. we are not operating with a lot of facts. we don't know whether there was a warrant requested and approved or denied. some members of barack obama's intelligence committee say that is not the case. if this surveillance is taking place and there was no warrant, that doesn't preclude there is a rogue operator out there.
that is at least as valid as the other theories. host: do you think president trump was adding that into the mix or gu think he has evidence? guest: i think he has evidence. no one has more access to intelligence and the president of united dates. -- united states. the chairman of the select committee on intel will be included in this and is doing an investigation this month. i hope that the classified access i have is adequate to learn what is going on. that is an oversight responsibility of the judiciary committee. i think we need to look at the applications and understand which was returned down and why and what the applications were and specifically did it include the name donald trump or trump campaign or his supporters in advisers. we need to get those facts out. if somebody is doing some theing here -- we know telephone calls from general flynn were released, or the
narrative was released to the media. that would be classified information leaked to the press. there are people operating in and tell them likely released that information. that is a federal felony. host: do you think republican leadership is doing enough to investigate this? do you think republican leadership is taking these concerns for the president seriously enough? guest: i think devin nunes does a terrific job. when i listen to him, when i talk to him, he has the information he can get. he asks the right questions. he is judicious about it. i think you will go through this methodically. there may be something see american people can't know because of ossified information. i think donald trump has started this look. he has people within the intel community working against the agenda of the president of the united states. that's why i said on saturday he
needs to purge those people that are obama appointees from this administration they are not loyal to him. you can't carry out your agenda for your people trying to push a different agenda. this comes from some experience. i will just say in general terms i received a briefing from a top cia officer during the middle of the iraq war that was directly contrary to the position and the agenda and the policy of the commander-in-chief. it was designed to undermine that agenda. when i see that and hear that in a place like that in a time of war always was someone like james clapper comes to a classified briefing the second thursday after then gauzy and he azi and he and hillary clinton perpetuate the same information from the sunday before, that arose my confidence in the accuracy of all of our intelligence community. i have great respect for them. there are many patriots. they have some cleanup to do in the run shop. host: they want more time for
callers. wendi and roseville, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. representative keating, mike -- king, my question is when this new affordable care act -- it seems like they forget their people that just don't have money to pay for these things. who is the person that actually thoughtis bill and was given to the money problems? theeems like you guys, democrats and republicans, i called a couple of weeks ago and i said when is this politicizing going to stop? you are representing the american people. you are not representing the democrats over republicans. once you become a senator, you work for us. that. agreed with me on every time you see a bill come in, the democrats don't like it,
the republicans don't like it and nothing gets done. when is this politicizing going and you become our representatives instead of the republicans' and other people? guest: you make some good points on this. i think back on this debate as it was pushed through in 2009 and the first three months of 2010. the affordable care act was actually titled the patient protection and affordable care act. now we know it is not affordable. when you that then. that bill was written a lot by nancy pelosi's staff, a lot behind closed doors. late october or early november of 2009. essentially our leadership said here is what we think is in the bill. you don't have the votes to stop it. some of the said we will fight this.
there were no republican votes for it. i think that was a prudent decision. now we have a mess to clean up and it looks like there are no democratic votes are helping clean up the mess created by the passage of the affordable care act. i would like to see us get down to something subjective and i think there are some democrats that can work with republicans on this. we used to have 53 blue dogs that we can do business with. most of them lost their elections because they voted for the affordable care act. it is more polarized in this congress than in my memory, and i regret that. i do have friends on the other side of the aisle and i will talk about what you brought up today. host: randy from michigan, good morning. myler: i want to start up thinking you and the rest of the men and women that bring us this great program. you are doing a great service for the nation. host: appreciate that. caller: i would like to thank the representative for his time. i have a question.
why do you keep wanting to take health care away from my daughter? i have spent my whole life paying taxes so your mother could suck on a tube in the last three was of her life. guest: we have to do policies that are right for the united states of america. everyone one of us has experience along the way. i will just say we have compassion for everyone in this country. we are trying to shape the best policy for everyone in this country. host: janice, and defendant. good morning -- independent. good morning. caller: i wonder why we don't go after companies like monsanto that are making us sick. people like me, or at least that minimal, put back on the labeling that i was able to get to help my own health by being able to read whether or not my food has gmo's in it.
i don't have a smart phone and i can't afford the internet to get the information some other way. i think companies should at least have to label it. guest: my experience on gmo's is entirely different. i live in iowa. i understand how much production we have gotten out of this and that identifies sound science that says gmo's are harmful to people. i negotiate with europeans on this. they are essentially locking gmo's out of their marketplace. they can't find sound science either and they admit that. we just think there could be something down the line that we don't know or didn't think of they could be bad. most of this can be re-created in a laboratory -- in a natural laboratory. i think the labeling side of this, because there are so many components that should be included on the labeling, as
long as you can identify up the barcode. there is a way to identify the information on there. people should have access to what they want for food. if they want to buy organic, they should. some of my neighbors are raising organic food and doing pretty well raising their families on the family farm because of it. let the market decide this and let's look for sound science. if i can see sound science that supports your point, i will give that a good look. host: just a couple of ms. with congressman king. minutes with congressman king. there was an effort to get president trump to release his tax returns. that did not move forward in committee. i want to get your thought on it the president should release his tax returns. guest: this president is a unique situation. he is a $10 billion man. i encouraged him to release his taxes last march or so. i think that would've been the right time.
let the american people to through all that information. he said he is under audit. he may be under an audit or patchouli, that is possible -- perpetually, that is possible, but when you look at the pushback coming for any little youg real or imagined, can imagine if donald trump released his taxes now? this nation would be immobilized. we would poker every line item, imagining all kinds of nefarious things and not able to understand it. host: politically not the best move right now? guest: that is what i think. he is under no legal obligation to do that. if i'm sitting inside the oval office, i would probably say i wish you had taken my device last spring. republican.a caller: i would like to speak to the representative on behalf of the people who can't speak. people on medicaid and medicare pushed into it.
-- there aref ohio 23 states that accepted my from obamacare. they don't have money. they don't have internet. they can't protest. many disabled can't do it anyway. though, because they can vote from home. these people were forced into my care. they were just fine. everything was fine. now they are pushed into miss managed care to save money while the expand medicare for people that can work. i have another child that works three jobs and does not go to medicaid. but another one who desperately needs the old medicare and medicaid so she can afford her medicines to stay out of the hospital.